[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Fonceai By way of logic. The Bible is a wholly illogical book and should be neither cited, referenced, nor quoted in any debate as proof of anything.

put up or shut up.

Is that how it works? As a parent, I know better than to be displeased with my child. It's called good parenting. Parents who become disappointed or displeased with their children's behavior have misplaced emotional expression. If God is a good parent, then he wouldn't be displeased. Otherwise, he's not a good parent. Which is it?

So if your child kills someone, would that not displease you? A good parent wants to see there children make good choices in life. Because of God's want for men to make the right decision and eat of the thousands or even millions of other trees with the same type of fruit, and man's disobedience, God was displeased.

The parenting style you describe is called the tolerant/neglectful parenting style, in which there is no right or wrong. It has been shown in studies that children raised in such a household lack the necessary respect and thus, the connection that parents need to forge with their parents. I could NOT respect a god who does not have ground rules that he expects us to follow. I could not respect you because you are releasing your kids from the structure necessary for good mental, cognitive, and behavioural growth. I speak not only as a Christian, but as a big brother. I was blessed with the chance to raise my own sister up to the age of 6 when I went to college. She not only is the brightest bulb in the class, but also has much more respect for authority in the classroom. I watched a family that raised there daughter up like you say is the right way. Does she respect her parents? No. Does she respect other authority? No. Is she being succesful in life? no possible way. She still is bumming off her parents and she is three or four years older than me. I am sorry. I do not respect any parent who chooses a path that has consistently raised their kids to be nothing more than burger flippers.

You claimed earlier I'm forsaking logic in reference to the Bible. Now you call it "the dumbest of areas". Might want to check your own posts for continuity because right now I have no clue what you are trying to infer.

By that statement I meant the really simple stuff.

There is no "background". The specific part you are mentioning only describes what happened. It doesn't talk about how God felt about each occurrence. It simply mentions God at the end by saying he was displeased with Man. Not Adam and Eve, but with Man. Quite the emo-God, to be displeased with an entire race because of the actions of one man and one woman.

The man and woman were the entire race.

Actually, no. What I expect in a religious discussion, in which there are no actual answers, is for someone to say, "Yup, I can see how those contradictions turn you off to the Bible being a document of perfect truth." You don't even have to agree. It's simply good interpersonal communication to listen to what someone says, understand where they are coming from, and let them know that even though you disagree, they have a valid point from their own perspective. If you don't understand that perspective, or think it is based on wholly inaccurate logical reasoning, then you say so. But you aren't really presenting anything to challenge my claim. You're just blaming me personally for not seeing the truth in your answers. Not quite the same thing.

Show me a contradiction and maybe I will say that, but as yet, I haven't seen one. I am only telling you the simple explanation that claiming a change over time as an instantaneous contradiction is a logical fallacy because it takes the chronological order of things out of the context and focuses only on the change.

Those contradictions become evident when you read the Bible critically, as do the contradictions in your argument. You say to not take it literally, you say to ignore certain translated versions, now you're saying to read it critically. I've read three different versions "critically" and found the same problems.

Funny, I have never heard that. I have read the Bible through several times.

This is the debate. If you want to be cute and "psychoanalysing", should we talk about what happens to a deaf person who has such a problem fitting into the world that they attach themself to something that has no place in this world? Let's not. Stick to the points I've addressed and not me personally. All you'd be doing is showing that you need to attack the character of your opponent instead of their points.

1. As I have said before, I am not deaf. I am an interpreter in training with several deaf friends and enough knowledge in deaf culture to make a character in my book deaf.

2. I have no problem fitting in. I am actually very well accustomed to the world according to the Military Entrance Processing Station's psychologists.

3. I dare you to go up to an actual Deaf person and tell them they have a problem fitting in the world. The likely response is that the hearing world is having issues getting accustomed to the Deaf world.

If you want to psychoanalyse someone online, you might want to double check what they have said. I only said there was a possibility that I had ear problems, and since I never divulged the results of the audiologist appointment, now I deal with people saying I am deaf. If I were Deaf, I would be on only Deaf Chat Forums - AllDeaf.com if I were having problems getting accustomed to the world.

So now, who were you psychoanalysing?